IIRC the original bolts were opaque in the middle and hazy around the edges. It felt like they were blinding even to cameras and visors. New ones were thinner and evenly transparent, as if someone overlaid some cheap translucent plastic
Depending what kind of reading material you're looking for (e.g. high level details or mathematically/jargon dense papers) look for things discussing "Rosseland optical depth" and "grey atmosphere approximation".
At a high level, the common convention is to define the radius by finding where the optical depth is 2/3 when using Rosselands clever way of calculating a weighted mean of the opacity from that layer in the star to space across different wavelengths of light. 2/3 being a clever derivation from Eddington where, in an idealized model of a star, that's when the actual temperature of the star should equal its blackbody equivalent temperature.
Pedantically, this distance to the point of equality is an ever so slightly different value than the "distance from the center where there is a 50% chance a photon traveling directly outward will escape the star without another interaction" rule of thumb (in the same idealized grey model). Practically, that the difference is so small is why it's a fantastic rule of thumb explanation.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, execution for stealing 12 pence worth of stuff? That's crazy! Adjusting for inflation[1][2], that would be the same as nowadays being executed for stealing £5!
There's the punctuation and word choice tells. And the overall voice. But let's set that aside because some human writing shows similar traits, or perhaps a human used an LLM to "fix the grammar". So I'll point out another tell that this article is pure slop:
This article is overflowing with links, numbers, and graphs. When a human writes that densely, it takes effort to incorporate all those details. So the human only does that if each detail contributes to their argument. In this article it's mostly irrelevant. It's LLM filler to pad out an article that really has nothing to say beyond its (also LLM-scented) title.
I live in the west. I also have an excellent driving record and drive a small econobox.
Here's an interesting story that gave me greater understanding of how insurance is priced. Years ago, I worked at a place where I lived 5 miles away as the crow flies. However, due to geography, the only way to get between my work and my home was by car, using one of the most dangerous freeways in my state.
I got tired of the commute and moved closer to work, close enough that I didn't have to use the freeway (or even drive unless I was lazy) anymore. I reported the change of my residence to my car insurance company, and they cut my premium by a third.
They didn't say why, but I'm certain the reason was that I didn't take that freeway 10 times per week anymore.
I was genuinely shocked and it made me happier with my car insurance company. The behavior I expected is that they'd keep my premium the same and just pocket the extra profit. Of course, them doing this may earn enough loyalty and goodwill that they benefit more from being honest than from being overly greedy.
I do wonder if the same thing would have happened if I carried comprehensive rather than liability. I suspect not. They may see liability-only policies as an indicator that the customer is of limited means.
reply